Subject: Re: [PWE3] Starting WG adoption call for draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:38:18 -0500

Dear All,
do not support.
Several reasons:

 *
I think that problem of MAC withdrawal is out of scope of the PWE3 WG. I think that this problem is in scope of the L2VPN. IMHO, before any MPLS-TP specific mechanisms for L2VPN are adopted we need to discuss applicability of L2VPN and L3VPN, in particular when dynamic control plane is not used.
 *
MAC Withrawal, MAC management in general, is not part of PW OAM and should not re-use PW OAM G-ACh.

    Regards,
        Greg

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PWE3] Starting WG adoption call for draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02

This begins a two-week PWE3 WG adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02 , ending February 6. Please respond with your approval, disapproval, and other comments to the PWE3 list. If you don't support the adoption, providing a reason would be useful to the authors and the working group, but is not required. Of course, the reason why you support the draft is also welcome, but also optional. This request will be a part of PWE3 WG adoption calls going forward.

Thanks,
Andy and Matthew

---

From: Sami Boutros <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:54:10 -0800

Hi Greg,

Please see comments inline..

At 12:38 PM 2/3/2012, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 
>boundary="_000_FE60A4E52763E84B935532D7D9294FF1322B316C3AEUSAACMS0715e_"
>
>Dear All,
>do not support.
>Several reasons:
>I think that problem of MAC withdrawal is out of scope of the PWE3 
>WG. I think that this problem is in scope of the L2VPN. IMHO, before 
>any MPLS-TP specific mechanisms for L2VPN are adopted we need to 
>discuss applicability of L2VPN and L3VPN, in particular when dynamic 
>control plane is not used.

Sami: This is a requirement when deploying static PWs in an H-VPLS 
scenario along with PW-redundancy. I don't think this can be ignored..

>should not re-use PW OAM G-ACh.

Sami: So, how do you propose achieving this function for static PWs 
if we don't use PW-OAM?

Thanks,

Sami

>----------
>This begins a two-week PWE3 WG adoption call for 
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02 
>, ending February 6. Please respond with your approval, disapproval, 
>and other comments to the PWE3 list. If you don't support the 
>adoption, providing a reason would be useful to the authors and the 
>working group, but is not required. Of course, the reason why you 
>support the draft is also welcome, but also optional. This request 
>will be a part of PWE3 WG adoption calls going forward.
>
>Thanks,
>Andy and Matthew
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:47:42 -0500

Hi Sami,
thank you for interest in my comments. Please find my notes in-lined tagged GIM>>.

    Regards,
        Greg

________________________________
From: Sami Boutros [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 6:54 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Andrew G. Malis; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Starting WG adoption call for draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02

Hi Greg,

Dear All,
do not support.
Several reasons:

Sami: This is a requirement when deploying static PWs in an H-VPLS scenario along with PW-redundancy. I don't think this can be ignored..
 GIM>> H-VPLS is not PWE3 but L2VPN construct. And MAC management is not part of TDM PW or ATM PW. I'm not suggesting to "ignore" MAC Management but to address it in appropriate IETF WG.

Sami: So, how do you propose achieving this function for static PWs if we don't use PW-OAM?
 GIM>> I suggest request MAC Management VCCV PW ACH code point from IANA. I believe that MAC management is not element of PW OAM, unlike Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification, Loss and Delay Measurement that are common to all types of PWs.

Thanks,

Sami

    Regards,
        Greg

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [ mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PWE3] Starting WG adoption call for draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02

Thanks,
Andy and Matthew

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:02:30 +0800

Hi Sami, Greg

Sami: So, how do you propose achieving this function for static PWs if we 
don't use PW-OAM?
 GIM>> I suggest request MAC Management VCCV PW ACH code point from IANA. 
I believe that MAC management is not element of PW OAM, unlike Continuity 
Check, Connectivity Verification, Loss and Delay Measurement that are 
common to all types of PWs.

Fei: According to the description in 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-00

"This document specifies procedures for an MPLS Label Switching Router 
(LSR) to advertise its capabilities and configuration parameters, or
   other application-specific information, to its peers over LSPs, 
pseudowires, and sections.  Receivers can then make use of this
   information to validate or adjust their own configurations, and network 
operators can make use of it to diagnose faults and
   configuration inconsistencies between endpoints."

Maybe the GAP protocol is a better choice if the Ack message is not 
necessary?

Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2012-02-07 13:47

收件人
Sami Boutros <[email-masked]>, "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
抄送

主题
Re: [PWE3] Starting WG adoption call    for 
draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02

Hi Sami,
thank you for interest in my comments. Please find my notes in-lined 
tagged GIM>>.
 
    Regards,
        Greg

From: Sami Boutros [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 6:54 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Andrew G. Malis; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Starting WG adoption call for 
draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02

Hi Greg,

Dear All,
do not support.
Several reasons: 
I think that problem of MAC withdrawal is out of scope of the PWE3 WG. I 
think that this problem is in scope of the L2VPN. IMHO, before any MPLS-TP 
specific mechanisms for L2VPN are adopted we need to discuss applicability 
of L2VPN and L3VPN, in particular when dynamic control plane is not used.

Sami: This is a requirement when deploying static PWs in an H-VPLS 
scenario along with PW-redundancy. I don't think this can be ignored..
 GIM>> H-VPLS is not PWE3 but L2VPN construct. And MAC management is not 
part of TDM PW or ATM PW. I'm not suggesting to "ignore" MAC Management 
but to address it in appropriate IETF WG.
MAC Withrawal, MAC management in general, is not part of PW OAM and should 
not re-use PW OAM G-ACh. 

Sami: So, how do you propose achieving this function for static PWs if we 
don't use PW-OAM?
 GIM>> I suggest request MAC Management VCCV PW ACH code point from IANA. 
I believe that MAC management is not element of PW OAM, unlike Continuity 
Check, Connectivity Verification, Loss and Delay Measurement that are 
common to all types of PWs.

Thanks,

Sami

    Regards,
        Greg

From: [email-masked] [ mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PWE3] Starting WG adoption call for 
draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02

This begins a two-week PWE3 WG adoption call for 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02 , ending 
February 6. Please respond with your approval, disapproval, and other 
comments to the PWE3 list. If you don't support the adoption, providing a 
reason would be useful to the authors and the working group, but is not 
required. Of course, the reason why you support the draft is also welcome, 
but also optional. This request will be a part of PWE3 WG adoption calls 
going forward.

Thanks,
Andy and Matthew

---

From: Sami Boutros <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:50:14 -0800

Hi Greg,

>  GIM>> H-VPLS is not PWE3 but L2VPN construct. And MAC management 
> is not part of TDM PW or ATM PW. I'm not suggesting to "ignore" MAC 
> Management but to address it in appropriate IETF WG.

Sami: Good that we agree that this is needed.

>  GIM>> I suggest request MAC Management VCCV PW ACH code point from 
> IANA. I believe that MAC management is not element of PW OAM, 
> unlike Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification, Loss and Delay 
> Measurement that are common to all types of PWs.

Sami: The reason we are using the static PW-OAM status, is that we 
want to use a very similar procedure here to the one we use to send 
static PW status.

Thanks,

Sami

>>, ending February 6. Please respond with your approval, 
>>disapproval, and other comments to the PWE3 list. If you don't 
>>support the adoption, providing a reason would be useful to the 
>>authors and the working group, but is not required. Of course, the 
>>reason why you support the draft is also welcome, but also 
>>optional. This request will be a part of PWE3 WG adoption calls going forward.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Andy and Matthew
>>

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:03:42 -0500

Hi Sami,
thank you for your response. We are converging. I've snipped part of discussion and kept issue of PW OAM code point re-use.

Sami: The reason we are using the static PW-OAM status, is that we want to use a very similar procedure here to the one we use to send static PW status.
 GIM>> I am not convinced that such re-use is justified and introduction of new ACH code point would cause a problem.
 Regards,
    Greg
Thanks,

Sami

Thanks,

Sami

    Regards,
        Greg

Thanks,
Andy and Matthew